We don't know why we do that we just fucking do.
(All along the) Watchtower

Any living person, of any age or background who has unfortunately heard or witnessed this miserable charade has my utmost sympathy. For what their eyes and/or ears have bore witness to is a wholly unnecessary, cruelly dishonest discourtesy from which, they may never fully recover. This rap man who calls himself “Devlin” is nothing but a Devil in casual slacks. Even in this small and utterly deplorable extract we witness it thricefold. 

First - and foremostly - We are presented with an all-powerful raconteur. A curmudgeonly god-like figure whose clarity of vision is guaranteed by the towerly citadel he inhabits. (This could represent heaven above or the blessings of caucasianality).

Our initial cognitive response to a living breathing deity can only be that of awestruck submittance. So in order for this germinal memetic to re-produce adequately, our perceived elementary allusions must then be subverted. Secondary manifestation may now occur. As the devil is not one to dabble in subtleties, this subversion operates on two levels.
One; Subversion as discussed. Devlin achieves this via the tools of sympathy, our God feels pain, his poor pets have turned to bite the tail that drives them and he can no longer disregard this terrible decline.
Two; Affectate effigies of the yonic over the phallus, which will be disregarded altogether (metaphor = gats).

This manifests itself of course as the traditional: Hooker with the heart of gold (see video for evidence)

Penultimately the Devlin -being an outstanding PR agent - is all too aware that he must offer a product for sale or his ruses will be met with nothing but apathetic guffaws.

And so begins the final manifestation. Übermensch

With both manifestations complete, all seeds are sown. The final act may begin, beyond the infinite. Devlin’s primary and secondary manifestations are allowed to commingle, their particles unite, spore, unite then combine into a new, all -powerful manifestation. This takes the shape of a towering street ham, blessed with verbal dexterities only those who balked, pissed and drooled through GCSE Bitesize can fully appreciate. He takes aim, armed with poorly repackaged compositions from long dead giants of rich intellectual artistry and lets loose his mighty ‘burb bow hitting the target dead centre. Instilling instant braindeath to all who foolishly witness the crass back-street theatrics of our new oxymoronic underground, pop star.

Yes behold for he is upon us. The devil in green tights himself has spoken.

The Rap Robin Hood is here. 

Beware for soon we shall all be slain. 



(The Morning) Star 

I’d just like to point out, in the wake of Ricky Gervais’ pilot “Derek” and the constant criticisms of it (mostly by the daily mail, yeah I know but anyway, their inaccuracies are annoying me)
There was nothing cynical, satirical or distasteful about that “pilot”. If anything it was the most honest thing Ricky has created. It showed true compassion for people who think more of others than themselves, something Ricky’s ego in the past has prevented him from doing and the “comedy” aspects about the character of Derek which are been critized for being cheap or slapsticky? The truth is, just like Frank Spencer or Mr Bean these elements of comedy -which occur frequently in everyday life for everybody- were clearly designed here to create an endearing character, not a mockery. have we suddenly begun living in a grey, dull world now, where ‘comedy’ or humour can only exist if it the box description says so? does humour not exist in real life? do we need television to get our sole comedy fix does nothing exist outside of that medium? or is it just that our ability to form opinions is now deemed so worthless we have to wait until something has been labelled correctly and sanctioned before embracing it?
A Daily Mail writer also denigrated the show via one line delivered by Karl Pilkington: 
'this is my life, this is where I work, this is how I look, he's my best mate [gesturing at Derek], why would I want to show that off on the telly?'
As if the words of one character mirrors the words of the writer. Despite the fact that said writer also put the words:
"I’ve always thought it’s more important to be kind than to be clever and good looking"
into another character’s mouth. 
Are any of these people aware of what they are witnessing when they turn on their televisions or has reality TV disjointed our collective realities altogether?
Yes, Gervais has written a character in Dougie (Well he is pretty much just Karl playing himself but that’s by the by) to be the foil of his main protagonist Derek. A man who doesn’t see the importance that Derek does in being kind and honest to his fellow man. How is this hard to understand? has the concept of heroes and villains now become too complex too comprehend? Sadly yes, it would seem that the average viewer has now completely lost touch with the basic elements of storytelling necessary to convey ideas to an audience. Maybe that is the problem here, if ideas are presented then they require somewhat of an interaction from it’s audience. Some kind of personal input to reform and configure those ideas. Except we aren’t talking about 2001: A Space Odyssey, or The Fountain or Dog Star Man or anything that may have a consequence on our broad intellectual understanding. Just a simple tale about believable characters, the kind we see everyday yet no doubt cross the road to avoid but could understand if we allowed a modicum of emotional input and empathy but you know, we could just change the channel and have Come Dine With Me explain every aspect of our thoughts to us, the disembodied voice of it’s narrator explaining the comedy behind every mishap or contradiction. He is our God now, the sly winking deity in our box who wants to take our hand and tell us when to laugh, when to cry, when to click ‘share’ and spread our disgust, as a unit. We emphasise with him as he despises his subjects, we feel the distance from these idiots, we sit aloof while chugging the guts out of our Marks and Spencer wine boxes and clogging our arteries with the finest cheeses tesco has to offer and we don’t have time for your TV gervais. How dare you do this, how dare you offer something honest and with the possibility of direct emotional contact with reality. Just get out, go on, fuck off you fucking cynical bastard!!

I’d just like to point out, in the wake of Ricky Gervais’ pilot “Derek” and the constant criticisms of it (mostly by the daily mail, yeah I know but anyway, their inaccuracies are annoying me)

There was nothing cynical, satirical or distasteful about that “pilot”. If anything it was the most honest thing Ricky has created. It showed true compassion for people who think more of others than themselves, something Ricky’s ego in the past has prevented him from doing and the “comedy” aspects about the character of Derek which are been critized for being cheap or slapsticky? The truth is, just like Frank Spencer or Mr Bean these elements of comedy -which occur frequently in everyday life for everybody- were clearly designed here to create an endearing character, not a mockery. have we suddenly begun living in a grey, dull world now, where ‘comedy’ or humour can only exist if it the box description says so? does humour not exist in real life? do we need television to get our sole comedy fix does nothing exist outside of that medium? or is it just that our ability to form opinions is now deemed so worthless we have to wait until something has been labelled correctly and sanctioned before embracing it?

A Daily Mail writer also denigrated the show via one line delivered by Karl Pilkington: 

'this is my life, this is where I work, this is how I look, he's my best mate [gesturing at Derek], why would I want to show that off on the telly?'

As if the words of one character mirrors the words of the writer. Despite the fact that said writer also put the words:

"I’ve always thought it’s more important to be kind than to be clever and good looking"

into another character’s mouth. 

Are any of these people aware of what they are witnessing when they turn on their televisions or has reality TV disjointed our collective realities altogether?

Yes, Gervais has written a character in Dougie (Well he is pretty much just Karl playing himself but that’s by the by) to be the foil of his main protagonist Derek. A man who doesn’t see the importance that Derek does in being kind and honest to his fellow man. How is this hard to understand? has the concept of heroes and villains now become too complex too comprehend?

Sadly yes, it would seem that the average viewer has now completely lost touch with the basic elements of storytelling necessary to convey ideas to an audience. Maybe that is the problem here, if ideas are presented then they require somewhat of an interaction from it’s audience. Some kind of personal input to reform and configure those ideas. Except we aren’t talking about 2001: A Space Odyssey, or The Fountain or Dog Star Man or anything that may have a consequence on our broad intellectual understanding. Just a simple tale about believable characters, the kind we see everyday yet no doubt cross the road to avoid but could understand if we allowed a modicum of emotional input and empathy but you know, we could just change the channel and have Come Dine With Me explain every aspect of our thoughts to us, the disembodied voice of it’s narrator explaining the comedy behind every mishap or contradiction. He is our God now, the sly winking deity in our box who wants to take our hand and tell us when to laugh, when to cry, when to click ‘share’ and spread our disgust, as a unit. We emphasise with him as he despises his subjects, we feel the distance from these idiots, we sit aloof while chugging the guts out of our Marks and Spencer wine boxes and clogging our arteries with the finest cheeses tesco has to offer and we don’t have time for your TV gervais. How dare you do this, how dare you offer something honest and with the possibility of direct emotional contact with reality. Just get out, go on, fuck off you fucking cynical bastard!!


Help Needed.

Was at a talk yesterday in which they showed statistics about online journalism/information and how Twitter is becoming the most popular source for news, because it gets there quicker. I asked afterwards why people are seemingly believing that the quicker a story is broken the more accurate it is and was given some spiel about how this form of news is condensed therefore easier to digest in the fast moving world we now live and has become popular/prominent because of this.

Last time I checked the world was still spinning at the same rate it always has. What exactly has sped up?

What he really meant was it’s far easier/quicker/preferable to read something like:

"BAD BAD MAN IN UGANDA DONE BAD TING AND GUN GET GOT. CLICK LIKEY FOR MAKE HAPPEN"

Than to take time out of your day to read a detailed article covering the situation from different angles, using facts and allowing the reader to form an opinion from that or from suggested further reading. 

Because, ultimately. That would eat into the time you could/will spend posting pictures of those groovy socks you decided to wear to work this morning. 

I mean, god forbid that would ever happen. Imagine the injustice.